Chicago - The Most Bike Friendly City In The U.S. (Davis: sales, sales tax)

[Sunbiz1]

Originally Posted by ForYourLungsOnly

You know what else is great about more bikers/bike lanes? LESS CAR EXHAUST AND POLLUTION!!!

Also, I assume you aren't in healthcare research/academia? When choosing articles, one should look at the direct source (via pubmed, ovid, etc) of a study. One should also present data that supports their claim.

“The evidence suggests that regular exercise in highly polluted air might not result in the same neurological benefits that are observed in non-polluted air," they wrote. "However, to the authors’ knowledge there is not enough evidence to suggest that regular exercise in highly polluted air causes more damage to the brain due to air pollution exposure than benefits of physical activity.”

So...highly polluted areas (like Beijing, pictured in your magazine link), overall still no evidence that more damage occurs. Show some data from Chicago, Boston, San Francisco, Portland...all cities with far less pollution than many of the heavy polluters across the world.

"Today, however, air pollution is an environmental problem worldwide and the high traffic density, especially in urban environments and cities, is a major cause of this problem."

Funny that the solution is less traffic, more cycling, more mass transit....how ironic.

While I agree with the solutions, the majority of this country is too lazy to pedal. And then there's the practical issue of climate, which limits non-hardy cyclists to a few short months annually.

Suburbs have desperately needed upgraded public transportation since they were built. Roads are falling apart, there's no money without raising taxes. Good luck with these solutions.

As for cycling in heavy traffic, I'll stick to the HVAC equipped indoor fitness facilities.

[xsboost]

Originally Posted by ForYourLungsOnly

Suburbanites pay taxes to their suburb. They can moan about bike lanes causing traffic in their suburb all they want. Certainly didn't make your point there. Then the suburbanites commute out of their suburb to Chicago, and then moan about bike infrastructure IN CHICAGO paid for by taxes of CHICAGO RESIDENTS..NOT the taxes they contributed. Get it?

No, I don't get it. Using your logic, should you pay higher taxes for using the roads out in the suburbs then? Sound ridiculous now?

My point was cyclists paying their fair share if they want to use the road just like any other car. Stay on point. Besides, your argument isn't even valid. The *state* funds the non-residential roads, not the city. All IL residents fund infrastructure through property taxes paid.

Originally Posted by ForYourLungsOnly

I don't pay the same amount of taxes? Do you know what I pay in property taxes? We own a vehicle in our household, just very rarely use it. I pay for a city sticker. I pay plate renewals. It has nothing to do with being a cyclist or not. I pay taxes just like every city resident, and would like some infrastructure for bikes, since the vast majority of infrastructure has been auto centric.

Where did I say you? I said:

Originally Posted by xsboost

These are things that car owners pay on top of what a non-car owner pays. Pay the same "fees" and bicycles should get the same privileges as cars. Oh wait, they already do.

For some reason you keep including yourself into the group I'm referring to. Feeling guilty about something?

[ForYourLungsOnly]

Originally Posted by Sunbiz1

While I agree with the solutions, the majority of this country is too lazy to pedal. And then there's the practical issue of climate, which limits non-hardy cyclists to a few short months annually.

Suburbs have desperately needed upgraded public transportation since they were built. Roads are falling apart, there's no money without raising taxes. Good luck with these solutions.

As for cycling in heavy traffic, I'll stick to the HVAC equipped indoor fitness facilities.

I'm not calling for a majority to pedal. But a large portion of those that choose not to is due to inadequate/unsafe infrastructure

[ForYourLungsOnly]

Originally Posted by xsboost

No, I don't get it. Using your logic, should you pay higher taxes for using the roads out in the suburbs then? Sound ridiculous now?

No... you're clearly not getting it. I'm not talking about anyone paying higher taxes. I can't even respond to this because it makes no sense.

My point was cyclists paying their fair share if they want to use the road just like any other car. Stay on point. Besides, your argument isn't even valid. The *state* funds the non-residential roads, not the city. All IL residents fund infrastructure through property taxes paid.

What aren't you getting here...CYCLISTS PAY TAXES. Why do you keep saying "pay your fair share"? Should pedestrians get licenses and registration cards for walking on sidewalks or across streets? No. That is absurd...because pedestrians (and bikes) aren't lethal weapons that kill thousands every year if misused, driven while drunk, driven while texting, speeding, etc. That is why you need a license. That is not to say cyclists shouldn't follow road laws. I never said they shouldn't. Don't want to pay for a car? Get a bike, take transit, or walk.

Where did I say you? I said:



For some reason you keep including yourself into the group I'm referring to. Feeling guilty about something?
Yeah. I feel guilty for using my car once every two months for big shopping trips. Stop deflecting. You made the assumption that "us bikers" don't "pay our fair share"....when in fact we not only pay the taxes you pay, many of us also have cars that we pay insurance/sticker fees/etc. for.

In bold.

And here....maybe this will get through your head more easily
http://www.chicagomag.com/city-life/...t-Never-Works/

Look outside the US in extremely bike friendly cities for solutions that work. Education, infrastructure, etc.

[xsboost]

Originally Posted by ForYourLungsOnly

In bold.

No, you're the one not getting it. Answer these two questions for me:

If you do not own a car and own only a bicycle, what fees do you pay for using that bicycle?

Now, if you own only a car and not a bicycle, what fees do you pay for using that car?

Get it?

[xsboost]

Originally Posted by ForYourLungsOnly

And here....maybe this will get through your head more easily
Why Bicycle Licensing (Almost) Never Works | Chicago magazine | Politics & City Life March 2015

Look outside the US in extremely bike friendly cities for solutions that work. Education, infrastructure, etc.

The title of your "proof" even states that it "almost never" works. The first sentence of the article even states Honolulu doing it successfully:

"The idea is almost always a money-losing, ineffective mess. Only Honolulu manages to register lots of bikes—and brings in a lot of revenue in the process."

Seems like we should be looking at the successes and model a program after theirs instead of after failures. Should I now scour the internet for articles on why bicycles should be taxed as proof for my argument?

[ForYourLungsOnly]

Originally Posted by xsboost

No, you're the one not getting it. Answer these two questions for me:

If you do not own a car and own only a bicycle, what fees do you pay for using that bicycle?

Now, if you own only a car and not a bicycle, what fees do you pay for using that car?

Get it?

Uhh...What exactly does paying a fee/insurance to own a car have to due with taxes that EVERYONE PAYS, whether you have a car, a bike, both, or neither. If you only own a bicycle, why would you pay fees associated with car ownership. Fees/Licenses for pedal bikes has proven time and again to be a failure. Read the article I linked. Your argument makes absolutely no sense.

[ForYourLungsOnly]

Originally Posted by xsboost

The title of your "proof" even states that it "almost never" works. The first sentence of the article even states Honolulu doing it successfully:

"The idea is almost always a money-losing, ineffective mess. Only Honolulu manages to register lots of bikes—and brings in a lot of revenue in the process."

Seems like we should be looking at the successes and model a program after theirs instead of after failures. Should I now scour the internet for articles on why bicycles should be taxed as proof for my argument?

Yes. The article states that licensing pedal bikes almost never works, and is a waste of money. Good job!

One city has mild success with it after dozens of others have failed (not to mention its failure in European countries with far better infrastructure and bike culture than the US). Of course your logic would be to deduce that it is a good idea.

How are bike laws upheld in Honolulu compared to the rest of the country? Is your goal safety or "revenue" Honolulu may have made revenue, yet has bike safety improved? Seems your priorities aren't straight.

[xsboost]

Originally Posted by ForYourLungsOnly

Uhh...What exactly does paying a fee/insurance to own a car have to due with taxes that EVERYONE PAYS, whether you have a car, a bike, both, or neither. If you only own a bicycle, why would you pay fees associated with car ownership. Fees/Licenses for pedal bikes has proven time and again to be a failure. Read the article I linked. Your argument makes absolutely no sense.

Originally Posted by ForYourLungsOnly

Yes. The article states that licensing pedal bikes almost never works, and is a waste of money. Good job!

OMG, let me make it easier for you:

"The idea is almost always a money-losing, ineffective mess. Only Honolulu manages to register lots of bikes—and brings in a lot of revenue in the process."

[ForYourLungsOnly]

Originally Posted by xsboost

OMG, let me make it easier for you:

"The idea is almost always a money-losing, ineffective mess. Only Honolulu manages to register lots of bikes—and brings in a lot of revenue in the process."

Yea...ONLY HONOLULU....do you know what ONLY MEANS? Honolulu is an EXCEPTION to an otherwise catastrophic failure of an idea. If someone was trying a new surgery method and 15 people died, while 1 lived...I'm sure the medical community would say "well we should base the findings off of the one good example"...ridiculous.

It has shown to cost money in most instances, not improve bike safety, and not provide any tangible benefit to either drivers or cyclists. What is your priority? Safety? Haven't said so yet.